1) you are talking about a license (and/or registration) to use a car on public property.

2) these are State laws, not Federal.

>" the insurance companies can cover the cost of the damage done by all those Licensed, and Responsible Gun Owners who kill themselves or others either intentionally (suicide or murder) or accidentally."

There already is a means to hold people financially responsible for damage they cause. See O.J. Simpson (who didn't use a gun, BTW).

Did the second, or even the first, or any other rights, restrict the states originally? seems to me I've read some convincing arguments they were to prevent the new federal governemnt from taking power, not intended to restrict the individual state governments.

I know that's changed, first with the Civil War establishing the federal government can overrule the state government. Since then courts, right or wrongly, have expanded the application of a lot of things in the constitution.

Obviously NY as a State and Chicago and DC as cities believe the answer is restrictive gun laws; however, none seem to understand that the actual gun control has to start with the people themselves.....get rid of the gangs and stop having revolving door prison legislation and you will eliminate a good majority of your gun deaths. In NYC itself, gun deaths went way down during Guillianni's terms because he tackled the actual problem without restrictive gun control. Chicago and DC are the two most violent gun death cities in the USA.......and surprise, surprise, BOTH are in BO's backyard, and BOTH have restrictive gun laws. And puhhleeze don't give that old lecture about how criminals are bringing the guns in from VA and Indiana because statistics have shown over time that a good many of those guns were legally owned and stolen and another good many were actually 'trucked' in from across the Mexican borders.

eliminate the gangs.......every time a person is picked up with an illegal weapon (not legally owned by them) whether during a commission of a crime or not, automatic five or ten year sentences imposed or added onto the sentence if they are found guilty of the actual crime. If the person owns the gun legally and has not committed a crime, no problem....but if they do commit a crime and are found guilty (even if it's domestic violence or some crime that would be considered to be a 'lesser' type of felony) and they legally own a gun, it's confiscated and aren't allowed to own one anymore. Stop plea-bargaining and figuring that a misdemeanor conviction is okay when a felony is warranted instead because plea-bargaining might allow that person to keep their weapon. If a person goes to a doctor and threatens violence, allow the doctor to report that BUT leave it to the police to determine if the person owns a weapon and not the doctor. Those are a few things I can think of right now......there are probably more things that can be done without restricting law-abiding citizens. Target the bad guys heavily instead.

What are YOUR suggestions to stop the gun violence........other than taking away the ability to purchase guns from those who legally can own them and leaving all the rest in the hands of the bad guys? A systematic problem with our society is exactly why I think there should be mandatory sentencing for criminal gun possession instead of a revolving door policy that we currently have.

It depends on the State. I do agree that the United States Constitution refers specifically to the Federal Government. Whether or not any specific State can regulate guns then depends on what their State Constitution says.

else which is damaging or defamatory. In this case there is no perpetrator of slander, there was a news organization who may or may not have made a good faith error in reporting. The First Amendment is broad in its shielding of journalists because Journalists rarely kill people (accidentally or intentionally) with their words, and because stamping on free speech (as you can be sure the NRA would do if it were permitted), would have a "chilling effect" on public and political discourse.

You may be wedded to the Second Amendment, but the First trumps all the others.

Now Bob Novak tried to put a woman in peril of her life, a serving CIA officer at that, and he got away with it, and I don't recall a lot of hand-wringing here about his deliberate actions. In fact I very clearly recall people here being angry that Valerie Plame survived his little passive-aggressive journalistic attempt on her life, because it revealed the sham that was the Sainted George W.'s WMD excuse for invading Iraq, which of course was thought to be a capital offence at the time.

I also think you underestimate the damage done by propaganda from news organizations. If they weren't such a threat to someone, then why do so many govts also try to control what they print? Seems those governments are often more worried about propaganda from a press that disagrees with them than they are about citizens and guns.

for guns, or at least some. I admit it would seem odd to go to walmart for a shotgun and have to fill out the paperwork and wait a week.

I don't care much what anybody has in their house, even criminals, but the guns don't stay there, esp for the criminals.

But I have no problem with a computer database tracking every gun legally sold either. Right now, when they want to trace a serial number of a gun found somewhere, even at a crime scene, the agency they call has no computer database, they have to call gunstores, go through file cabinets, etc. Right now a federal law tacked on to an appropriation bill forbids one.

Do you object to tracking ownership of guns and prosecution for anyone selling one under the table? If I'll allow you the right to a 50 round rifle, will you agree to a computerized database of who owns any specific gun? Will you agree to criminal charges on anyone that sells one to an uncleared buyer?

However, with no more or less restrictions on what "law abiding citizen" may own or carry, I would like more penality for anyone not qualifying to own a gun for having one in his/her possession. I would like the same penality to anyone buying a gun for someone else that hasn't had a background check and a permit to buy to prove it.

a waiting period for news reports to be reviewed and approved by the government before publishing could occur, as valid under the First Amendment? Do you believe some Amendments have more "rights" than others?

to remember that that was EXACTLY how firearm purchases used to be made - walk into the shop, fill out the Form 4473, show proof of age and identity, pay your money and leave with the firearm.

There were less mass shootings then because more homes had firearms and parents instructed their children in their safe use. Many youngsters worked odd jobs and saved up their money to purchase their own rifle or shotgun in their early teens and used their new purchases often and well and safely.

I can't understand how anyone could want to give up ANY of their rights just to "get along" or because others who do not exercise their own right believe no one else should either.

The Bill of Rights was the result of DEMANDS of the delegates to the ratification conventions because a war had just been fought against a tyrant who felt colonists had no rights. The actual revolution started when British troops moved to confiscate firearms of the colonists and the founders wanted it made clear that it couldn't happen again because the government was granted absolutely NO AUTHORITY of the right of the people to arm themselves and use those arms. Laws passed to punish the MIS-USE or arms are wholly appropriate as they do not infringe upon the basic right.

Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania said it rather well and clarified WHO the militia is and exactly what arms the citizens of this country have a right to keep and bear - "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." -- The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

Note that "Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American ." indicate that the founders were aware of new technology in weapons and expected the citizens to be able to arm themselves equally as well as any domestic or foreign soldier whether friend or enemy. These weapons are the very type the gun banners now want to take away despite their being exactly what the founders had in mind that government has no power to infringe upon.

Again today several million legal and responsible owners of these so called "assault weapons" killed or injured no one illegally although several thousand of these same owners did prevent criminals from doing such things.

no one I knew had anything but shotguns and a 22 rifle, maybe a larger caliber for hunting some.

People actually hunted deer with a 12 gauge shotgun with buckshot or slugs, not semi-automatic rifles. Nothing wrong with semi-auto, but I never saw one in real life (vs tv and movies) until I was much older.

I do remember semi-auto shotguns then. As far as the rifles I remember, I don't think I ever personally saw anything but a bolt action until I was much older.

I may have walked by some in a store somewhere, but I referring to ones I saw up close and knew what they were.

Do you think guns should be sold now without a thorough background check, even if it means a wait, and no tracking of ownership. Do you think an individual who knowing sells to a criminal who could not pass a background check isn't as guilty as that individual for what happens with that gun?

I've made the statement in one way, I don't care what you have in your house, as long as it stayed there. That didn't mean you couldn't take a pistol with you, or get a concealed carry, it meant if you had a machine gun to protect your property and family against those home invasions everyone uses for an example to justify gun ownership, it stays in you house, your property outside for target practice I guess if you insure the bullet doesn't cross your property line, or maybe a registered target firing range. If you carry a machine gun to a theater, or shopping center, I damn well think you're a suspicious person and should be treated as dangerous.

became standard fare for home protection use. I can understand that home invasions often mean several people enter at once and that even 10 bullets isn't enough but those 3+ k fps bullets don't stop when they hit sheet rock and plywood and can easily kill a neighbor several doors away.

But in seriousness you're right, just like having an rpg for protection isn't really going to work.

In the house, you're actually probably better off with a barely legal length 12 guage shotgun with buckshot for almost all threats. Only exception is the worse case scenario I guess where a dozen people attack you at once and they're all armed. Then you just need a bomb keyed to go off if your heartbeat stops I guess.

Wasn't there a pistol grip short barrel shotgun called a "street sweeper" semi auto that held a dozen shells?

I understand now you can actually buy a magazine for a shotgun that is basicaly drum magazine and an adapter to plug into your shotgun that will hold 20 rounds?

you should take it somewhere and learn to fire it with the same authority you'd need if faced with having to use it. I'm sure there are plenty of folks who have a gun for protection but have never pulled the trigger on one. They've seen Clint Eastwood do it in a movie and think it's that easy.

though I don't enjoy it when I'm in the backyard and every 2 minutes somewhere across the trees there is a gun shot. It always made my wife edgy.

I think it would be good if anyone that thinks they may use a gun to kill someone else in self protection could go through one of those situation ranges sometime where you go down a street and figures pop up and you have to decide instantly if they're bystander or dangerous shooters to be taken out. Or you're going through a building and when you enter a room you have to decide instantly is that a bad guy to be shot immediately or your spouse or kid.

Do even most cops get any training like that, or is it only tv and movie fanasty land?

Not as a reason for people not to own guns, and I expect the number of times is extremely low, but it has happened; I can't think of anything that would be harder to live with than the guy that hears someone in the house in the middle of night, shoots them, then finds out its a spouse or older child he didn't expect home that night.

Woman I worked 3rd shift with a couple of decades ago went home without calling at about 3 in the morning. When she turned on the light her husband was standing in the doorway on the opposite side of the room with his pistol in the double hand shooting position pointing straight at her. Thankfully he didn't shoot, he was a LEO, currently working as prison guard, so had more training at least than most.

If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.

Track this thread and email me when there are updates.Please read before posting

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

Old Thread Warning!

This thread is more than days old. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and replying to it will serve no purpose. However, if you feel it is necessary to make a new reply, you can still do so.

I am aware that this thread is old, but I still want to post a reply.

Checkbox must be checked in order to post in this old thread.

Sorry, there was a problem submitting your post. Please try again.

Sorry, there was a problem generating the preview. Please try again.

Duplicate posts are not allowed in the forums. Please edit your post and submit again.